The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Robust optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy: Robust optimization of IMPT
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: Intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is highly sensitive to range uncertainties and uncertainties caused by setup variation. The conventional inverse treatment planning of IMPT optimized based on the planning target volume (PTV) is not often sufficient to ensure robustness of treatment plans. In this paper, a method that takes the uncertainties into account during plan optimization is used to mitigate the influence of uncertainties in IMPT. METHODS: The authors use the so-called "worst-case robust optimization" to render IMPT plans robust in the face of uncertainties. For each iteration, nine different dose distributions are computed-one each for ± setup uncertainties along anteroposterior (A-P), lateral (R-L) and superior-inferior (S-I) directions, for ± range uncertainty, and the nominal dose distribution. The worst-case dose distribution is obtained by assigning the lowest dose among the nine doses to each voxel in the clinical target volume (CTV) and the highest dose to each voxel outside the CTV. Conceptually, the use of worst-case dose distribution is similar to the dose distribution achieved based on the use of PTV in traditional planning. The objective function value for a given iteration is computed using this worst-case dose distribution. The objective function used has been extended to further constrain the target dose inhomogeneity. RESULTS: The worst-case robust optimization method is applied to a lung case, a skull base case, and a prostate case. Compared with IMPT plans optimized using conventional methods based on the PTV, our method yields plans that are considerably less sensitive to range and setup uncertainties. An interesting finding of the work presented here is that, in addition to reducing sensitivity to uncertainties, robust optimization also leads to improved optimality of treatment plans compared to the PTV-based optimization. This is reflected in reduction in plan scores and in the lower normal tissue doses for the same coverage of the target volume when subjected to uncertainties. CONCLUSIONS: The authors find that the worst-case robust optimization provides robust target coverage without sacrificing, and possibly even improving, the sparing of normal tissues. Our results demonstrate the importance of robust optimization. The authors assert that all IMPT plans should be robustly optimized.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Proton therapy – Present and future
Mohan, R., & Grosshans, D. (2017) · Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.addr.2016.11.006 · Cited by 608
Self-citationBarish, S., Ochs, M. F., Sontag, E. D., & Gevertz, J. L. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1703355114 · Cited by 48
Metadata
- Authors
- Liu, W., Zhang, X., Li, Y., & Mohan, R.
- Venue
- Medical Physics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-02-03
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 1079-1091
- ISSN
- 0094-2405 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2103101993
- Cited by
- 354
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Robust optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy: Robust optimization of IMPT. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1118/1.3679340
- The paper
- Liu, W., Zhang, X., Li, Y., & Mohan, R. (2012). Robust optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy: Robust optimization of IMPT. Medical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3679340
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.